Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 79

ORDER adopting 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary injunctive relief 54 , 55 , 60 , 65 , 68 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/30/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON BULLOCK,

12
13
14

No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG

Plaintiff,
v.
BROCK SHEELA, et al.,

15

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Defendants.
(Doc. No. 54, 55, 60, 65, 68, 76)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Gordon Bullock is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on

20

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint against Brock Sheela and C. Rios. (Doc. No. 26.) The

21

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

22

Local Rule 302.

23

On October 20, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

24

recommendations, recommending that plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief against California

25

Health Care Facility (Doc. Nos. 54, 55, 60, 65) and California Medical Facility (Doc. No. 68) be

26

denied. (Doc. No. 76.) The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings

27

and recommendations within twenty days. (Id. at 9.) To date, neither party has filed objections

28

and the time for doing so has now passed.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

4

Accordingly:

5

1.

6
7

adopted in full;
2.

8
9
10
11

The findings and recommendations issued on October 20, 2017 (Doc. No. 76) are

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 54, 55, 60, 65, 68) are denied;
and

3.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2